.DETAILED NON-FINAL OFFICE ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Comments
The drawings of November 27, 2024 are hereby accepted as FORMAL.
The information disclosure statement (IDS) of November 27, 20204 has been considered during examination.
The use of the terms Wi-Fi, Bluetooth, and IEEE, each of which is a trade name or a mark used in commerce, has been noted in this application. Each of these terms should be accompanied by the generic terminology; furthermore each of these terms should be capitalized wherever it appears or, where appropriate, include a proper symbol indicating use in commerce such as ™, SM , or ® following the term.
Although the use of trade names and marks used in commerce (i.e., trademarks, service marks, certification marks, and collective marks) are permissible in patent applications, the proprietary nature of the marks should be respected and every effort made to prevent their use in any manner which might adversely affect their validity as commercial marks. This is not an objection to the specification.
Please note that any mention of a line number of a claim in this office action refers to the claims as they appear in the official claim listing in the image file wrapper (IFW), not to any claim as it may be reproduced below.
Prior Art Rejections
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1, 3, 8-12, 17, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the article, “Intelligent Reflecting Surface-Aided Maneuvering Target Sensing: True Velocity Estimation,” by Lei Xie et al, hereinafter the Lei Xie article.
A person of ordinary skill-in-the-art would be a person having a degree in some form of engineering or in physics with several years of practical experience in the design and/or testing of systems using radio-frequency signals to make measurements of targets.
The text of independent claim 1 is as follows:
“1. A system, comprising: at least one processor; and at least one memory that stores executable instructions that, when executed by the at least one processor, facilitate performance of operations, comprising: based on a first signal between a receiver and a target object, determining a second signal between the receiver and the target object, wherein the first signal comprises a direct signal, and wherein the second signal comprises an indirect signal conveyed via an intelligent reflecting surface; determining a Doppler frequency of the second signal; and based on the Doppler frequency, determining a velocity estimation of the target object.”
Looking, first, to independent claim 1, the Lei Xie article plainly discloses, “A system” (line 1), noting, for example, the caption of drawing Figure 1 (noting the word, “system”) and the first line of the first paragraph of section II of the article.
The claim 1 features, “based on a first signal between a receiver and a target object, determining a second signal between the receiver and the target object, wherein the first signal comprises a direct signal, and wherein the second signal comprises an indirect signal conveyed via an intelligent reflecting surface” (lines 5-8) are met by the illustrated direct and indirect signals and the elements of drawing Figure 1 in the Lei Xie article.
The claim 1 feature, “determining a Doppler frequency of the second signal” (line 9) is met in the Lei Xie article by the disclosed determining of μd and of μr in the Lei Xie article, noting, for example, lines 1-3 of the first paragraph of subsection B of section II.
The claim 1 feature, “based on the Doppler frequency, determining a velocity estimation of the target object” (lines 10-11) is met in the Lei Xie article by the disclosed determining of the “true velocity” of the target, noting, for example, the last paragraph starting on the first page of the article (right column, starting, “In this paper …”) at lines 1-5, and, near the end of section II of the article, in the section starting “Remark,” please note lines 10-12.
However, the Lei Xie article does not disclose the claim 1, “at least one processor” (line 2) or the “at least one memory that stores executable instructions that, when executed by the at least one processor, facilitate performance of operations” (lines 3-4). In that the functions recited in the Lei Xie article art computationally intensive, as shown by the article, and in that the functions are part of the disclosed system (e.g., as shown in drawing Figure 1), it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill-in-the-art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to implement the functions by means of “at least one processor” for the advantages of increased speed and efficiency, with a reasonable likelihood of success. It would have further been obvious to one of ordinary skill-in-the-art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide, “at least one memory that stores executable instructions” for the “at least one processor” to optimize the functioning of the “at least one processor” by having the “executable instructions” readily available to the “at least one processor,” with a reasonable likelihood of success.
In that each and every limitation recited in independent claim 1 is plainly present in the Lei Xie article as modified above, independent claim 1 is obvious over the Lei Xie article.
The further limitations of dependent claim 3 are met by the Lei Xie article as applied above to independent claim 1 in that the successful propagation of the “second signal” in the Lei Xie article (e.g., see Figure 1) determines that the “second signal” is not “obstructed by an intermediate object located between the receiver and the target object.”
As for the further limitations of dependent claim 8, these are met by the Lei Xie article as applied above to independent claim 1 in that the functioning of the device in the Lei Xie article “depends on the mobility of the target” (section II, subsection B, first paragraph at lines 1-3). That is to say, the functioning of the device is a determination the “target object” is “in motion.”
The further limitations of dependent claim 9 are met in the Lei Xie article as applied above to independent claim 1, at least, by the “geometric relationship” as treated in section II, subsection B and by drawing Figure 2.
The limitations of independent claim 10 are met by the Lei Xie article as applied above to independent claim 1, particularly as to the “executable instructions” being stored in the “at least one memory” in that rejection above.
With respect to the further limitations of dependent claim 11, these are met by the Lei Xie article as applied above to independent claim 10 in that the disclosure is directed to a target generally, which encompasses vehicles. In that a satellite is a space vehicle or an “object,” it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill-in-the-art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that the “target object” could be a satellite, making the signal transmitted to the satellite “an uplink signal.” That is to say, the detection in view in the Lei Xie article of a “target object” could be any “target object” desired.
Next, looking to the further limitations of dependent claim 12, in that the base station disclosed in the Lei Xie article transmits a signal to a “target object” and receives a return signal from the “target object,” the receiver in the Lei Xie article could broadly be called a radar receiver.
The further limitations of dependent claim 17 are met by the Lei Xie article as applied above to independent claim 1 in that the “first link” signal or the direct signal could be broadly called “obstructed by a moving object” is the signal does not pass beyond the moving object. For example, in drawing Figure 1 in the Lei Xie article, the illustrated vehicle could broadly be said to be obstructing the direct signal in that the vehicle does not permit the direct signal from going on further beyond the vehicle.
The remarks with respect to independent claim 18 are substantially those made above with respect to independent claim 1, in that claim 18 is the method claim corresponding to the apparatus of claim 1.
Potentially-Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2, 4-7, 13-16, and 19-20 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
None of the prior art of record either taken alone or taken in any possible combination would anticipate or would tender to render obvious Applicant’s claimed apparatus as set forth in dependent claim 2 as combined with independent claim 1 in that the claimed subject matter of dependent claim 2 is not disclosed in any of the prior art of record.
None of the prior art of record either taken alone or taken in any possible combination would anticipate or would tender to render obvious Applicant’s claimed apparatus as set forth in any one of dependent claims 4-7 as combined with independent claim 1 in that the claimed subject matter of each of dependent claims 4-7 is not disclosed in any of the prior art of record.
None of the prior art of record either taken alone or taken in any possible combination would anticipate or would tender to render obvious Applicant’s claimed computer-program product as set forth in any one of dependent claims 13, 14, and 16 as combined with independent claim 10 in that the claimed subject matter of each of dependent claims 13, 14, and 16 is not disclosed in any of the prior art of record. Dependent claim 15 is potentially-allowable, at least, in that it depends from potentially-allowable dependent claim 14.
None of the prior art of record either taken alone or taken in any possible combination would anticipate or would tender to render obvious Applicant’s claimed method as set forth in any one of dependent claims 19 and 20 as combined with independent claim 18 in that the claimed subject matter of each of dependent claims 19 and 20 is not disclosed in any of the prior art of record.
Prior Art of General Interest
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
The publication, “3GPP TR 22.837” cited herewith, is of general interest for showing the general state of the related prior art in cellular networks. It could not be used in a prior art rejection of the claims in that it merely shows the general state of the related prior art.
The publication, “Intelligent Reflecting Surface Aided Multicasting with Random Passive Beamforming,” cited herewith, is of general interest for the general disclosure of the system illustrated in drawing Figure 1. It could not be used in a prior art rejection of the claims in that it merely shows the general state of the related prior art.
Zorgui et al (‘111) is of general interest for showing the state of the related prior art. Zorgui et al (‘111) does not disclose a intelligent surface, but Zorgui et al (‘111) does mention Doppler in paragraph [0068], but, not in the way Doppler is used in the independent claims 1, 10, and 18. It could not be used in a prior art rejection of the claims in that it merely shows the general state of the related prior art.
Duan et al (‘677) is of general interest for showing the state of the related prior art. Duan et al (‘677) is of general interest for drawing Figures 4 and 4B, as well as, for the mention of Doppler in paragraph [0071], but, not in the way Doppler is used in the independent claims 1, 10, and 18. It could not be used in a prior art rejection of the claims in that it merely shows the general state of the related prior art.
Kumari et al (‘364) is of general interest for showing the state of the related prior art. Kumari et al (‘364) does disclose determining velocity and intelligent surfaces (e.g., see paragraph [0035]). Kumari et al (‘364) mentions Doppler in paragraph [0101], but, not in the way Doppler is used in the independent claims 1, 10, and 18. It could not be used in a prior art rejection of the claims in that it merely shows the general state of the related prior art.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BERNARR E GREGORY whose telephone number is (571)272-6972. The examiner can normally be reached on Mondays through Fridays from 7:30 am to 3:30 pm eastern time.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Vladimir Magloire, can be reached at telephone number 571-270-5144. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for published applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Patent Center to authorized users only. Should you have questions about access to the USPTO patent electronic filing system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
Examiner interviews are available via a variety of formats. See MPEP § 713.01. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) Form at https://www.uspto.gov/InterviewPractice.
/BERNARR E GREGORY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3648
Prosecution Insights